Saturday, March 3, 2012

Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity

As Michael Ruse and others have pointed out the language evolutionists use can be telling, but what is not discussed is that the language evolutionists do not use is also telling. Anyone familiar with the evolution genre cannot help but notice the curious use of design language. Teleology abounds as natural selection is described as “solving” this or that “problem.” As Ernst Mayr pointed out in Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, “The use of terms like purposive or goal-directed seemed to imply the transfer of human qualities, such as intent, purpose, planning, deliberation, or consciousness, to organic structures and to subhuman forms of life.” Of course for Ruse, Mayr and the evolutionists these are merely interesting asides. The persistence of teleological language in the literature is nothing more than a commentary on how we think and do science. Perhaps it reveals a certain laziness of thought, or perhaps it is a useful way of problem solving, but either way it is nothing more than a fiction. Sure the world looks designed, but we all know that such primitive teleological thinking has long since been exposed and rejected. After all, evolution is a fact.

This brings us to that language that evolutionists do not use. They explain that evolution is a fact, and they give long, flowery descriptions of this process. Organic chemicals coalesced in warm little ponds or along deep sea concentration gradients. Single celled organisms emerged and natural selection proceeded to act on naturally occurring biological variation. The drama unfolded as volcanoes, lightning and comets created just the right mix. Neutral and positive mutations produced innovative solutions to the challenges of the evolving biosphere, resulting in common ancestors and clades. Evolutionists display beautiful, detailed murals depicting this epic history.

But what is not said is that all of this just happened to occur, all on its own. In short, the world arose spontaneously. While evolutionists readily adopt design and teleological language, they eschew accurate, objective descriptions of what their theory actually claims. Evolutionists insist it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously, but they avoid such stark terms. They avoid this because such clarity reveals the absurdity of evolutionary thought.

Spontaneous action is an important concept in science. Everything from thunderstorms and snowflakes to proteins arise spontaneously. Indeed evolutionists often appeal to this phenomena as support. Snowflakes and proteins arise spontaneously, so why not everything else? As I have pointed out this argument fails badly, and in fact merely points out yet more problems for evolution.

But yet another fundamental problem for evolutionists is that the spontaneous formation of things like thunderstorms, snowflakes and proteins occurs within a context. Yes proteins fold spontaneously, but only in the right type of aqueous solution. Even more important, you need an unfolded protein to begin with. That is, you need hundreds of amino acids to be covalently bonded, one to the next, by peptide bonds. And furthermore, it must not be just any arbitrary sequence of amino acids, but from a special class of sequences which, yes, spontaneously folds.

So the right type of amino acid sequence needs to be specified, those amino acids need to be held together by peptide bonds, and the resulting unfolded chain needs to be placed into the right kind of aqueous solution. Then, yes, it will fold spontaneously.

The same logic applies to thunderstorms, snowflakes and everything else. There is a context within which these things spontaneously form, and the context is crucial. These things don’t just happen spontaneously without the proper context. And so whenever we speak of spontaneous action in science, it is understood that there is an implied context. Molecules A and B spontaneously bond to form molecule AB, but it is understood that molecules A and B are mixed together in the same test tube, at an appropriate temperature, concentration, and so forth.

So in science spontaneous action is not action that is free of context. There is no such thing, we might say, as brute spontaneity. Unless, that is, you are an evolutionist. Here we have yet another absurdity of evolutionary theory. You won’t find this in their beautiful murals or flowery textbook descriptions, but evolutionary thought is based on context-free, brute spontaneity.

Evolutionists appeal to changing allele frequencies, genetic mutations and other means of biological variation as their sources of innovation. And while such mechanisms show little evidence of being capable of designing nature’s incredible array of species, even if they could they would rely on the context of molecular biology—a context which according to evolution arose via, yes, evolution.

But it does not stop here. Molecular biology must have evolved within a context. A terrestrial environment, providing the right mix must have led to the origin of molecular biology, cellular life and the underlying biochemistry.

And again, the terrestrial environment must have evolved within a context of an early earth. And the earth must have evolved within a context of an evolving solar system. And the solar system evolved from a cloud of gas. And the gas evolved from, well, you get the idea.

Ultimately evolution has no starting point except for nothing. For evolutionists there can be no Prime Mover. Everything we see must have arisen from nothing. And while one might, with sufficient wine or song, dream of such unlikely possibilities, evolutionists insist that all of this is a scientific fact that must be acknowledged by all rational parties. Evolution’s absurdity is exceeded only by its confidence.

But in their insistence, evolutionists will never use such clarity. Like the cult that hides its true beliefs to newcomers, evolution covers over its absurdities with beautiful murals and descriptions. They scoff when they hear their theory accurately described. For that is the language that evolutionists do not use.

17 comments:

So in science spontaneous action is not action that is free of context. There is no such thing, we might say, as brute spontaneity. Unless, that is, you are an evolutionist. Here we have yet another absurdity of evolutionary theory. You won’t find this in their beautiful murals or flowery textbook descriptions, but evolutionary thought is based on context-free, brute spontaneity.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that nothing happens spontaneously? If so, are you also saying that God personally folds every protein and assembles every snowflake with His own fair hands?

Ultimately evolution has no starting point except for nothing. For evolutionists there can be no Prime Mover. Everything we see must have arisen from nothing. And while one might, with sufficient wine or song, dream of such unlikely possibilities, evolutionists insist that all of this is a scientific fact that must be acknowledged by all rational parties. Evolution’s absurdity is exceeded only by its confidence.

As you are well aware, the theory of evolution says nothing about origins. In biology, there is a related field of research called abiogenesis. For the origins of our Universe we look to cosmology. You cannot in all fairness criticize the theory of evolution for not doing something it never purported to do in the first place.

As for your Prime Mover, it must have the properties of being entirely self-contained and non-contingent that are minimum requirements for a credible First Cause. The problem with such an entity is that being entirely sufficient unto itself, having no need whatsoever of anything beyond itself, why did it create this universe here and now, why did it create anything at all?

A God that creates a universe so that it can marvel at its creative powers and populates it with beings with who it can develop a loving relationship bespeaks a being that has needs, wants, desires, even whims that cannot be met from its internal resources. In other words, a god or whatever that creates a universe cannot be the necessary First Cause that prevents an infinite regress of cause and effect. You cannot have it both ways.

CH: Anyone familiar with the evolution genre cannot help but notice the curious use of design language.

Here Cornelius is implicitly arguing that we cannot explain why things appear *as if* they were designed. Essentially, we can distill this down to a claim that the biosphere was created in such a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible.

But that would be like claiming atoms were created in a way that makes atomic theory impossible, or that objects were being moved in a way that makes gravitational theory impossible. How does Cornelius know is this the case for the biosphere, but not in the case of atoms or moving objects?

However, evolutionary theory does present an explanation as to why it appears *as if* the biosphere was designed. This is because the means by which we create knowledge and the way evolutionary processes create knowledge both fall under the same umbrella: conjecture and refutation.

What separates the two is that, unlike people, natural processes cannot create explanations, then use them as a criteria for discarding possibilities. Nor do natural process exhibit foreknowledge, intent, etc.

Of course, this brings us to the fact that Cornelius has yet to even acknowledge or present any criticism for this explanation. At all. Period. Rather, he keeps presenting the same "spontaneously appeared" misrepresentation, despite being corrected over and over again.

This is because the underlying, central flaw in creationism is also the central flaw of the pre-enlightenment, authoritative account of how we, as human beings, create knowledge. In fact, in some cases, it's the same theory.

For example, the belief that morality and other rules of behavior (knowledge) was "spoken" to early human beings represents an example of the very same account of knowledge. Our relatively recent, rapid increate in knowledge is because "that's just what God must have wanted". The biosphere was created in a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible, etc.

I wrote: Of course, this brings us to the fact that Cornelius has yet to even acknowledge or present any criticism for this explanation. At all. Period. Rather, he keeps presenting the same "spontaneously appeared" misrepresentation, despite being corrected over and over again.

as a follow up to the above...

Cornelius, why don't you start out by explaining how we create knowledge, then point out how evolutionary process do not fit this explanation. Please be specific.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that nothing happens spontaneously? If so, are you also saying that God personally folds every protein and assembles every snowflake with His own fair hands?

No, my point was that in science we speak of spontaneous action *within a given context.* Evolutionists, OTH, can refer to a context, but even the context must have evolved. So any reference to context is merely intermediatary. Ultimately, there is no context.

As you are well aware, the theory of evolution says nothing about origins.

No, that is false. That is the first place where evolutionists backpedal to when questioned. Not only does the theory of evolution have plenty to say about origins, but evolutionary thought knows no such bounds.

For instance, spontaneous action (Randomness) may operate in the bounds of the Boltzmann equation, but spontaneous action (randomness) cannot account for the origination and unrelenting stability of the equation in the first place. A unrelenting stability since the universe's inception which provides the 'context' for the spontaneity that the equation describes;

The following is a very interesting quote on the Boltzmann equation of statistical mechanics that connects entropy (S) with molecular disorder (W).

This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann's constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet. Max Planck - In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture

Notes:

The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe:https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDdnc3E4bmhkZg

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

There's also something called the law of biogenesis, which can be falsified, but hasn't. Natural life does not arise from non-living matter...it only comes from life.

BTW, do you think that's why Pasteur, who HELPED humanity with his scientific knowledge (pasteurization) is not celebrated by the 'scientific' community the way darwin is, especially when all he did was basically tell them they're just accidents??

CH: No, my point was that in science we speak of spontaneous action *within a given context.* Evolutionists, OTH, can refer to a context, but even the context must have evolved. So any reference to context is merely intermediatary. Ultimately, there is no context.

As Karl Popper put it, "The objectify of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectivly tested." This is in contrast to being justified by some ultimate context. As such, you're confusing whether some statement is true with the question of whether it can be justified by some ultimate context.

Furthermore, positing some ultimate "context" which exists in some unexplainable realm serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state organisms "just appeared', complete with the "context" of how to create adaptations, already present.

As such, It adds nothing to our explanation of our theory of biological complexity. This is in contrast to biological evolution, which explains it as having been created by a form of conjecture and refutation.

Ian: As you are well aware, the theory of evolution says nothing about origins.

CH: No, that is false. That is the first place where evolutionists backpedal to when questioned. Not only does the theory of evolution have plenty to say about origins, but evolutionary thought knows no such bounds.

Evolutionary theory, as a whole, says nothing about an *ultimate* origin. Nor does it presuppose that any particular explanation represents an ultimate explanation. Nor is it necessary for it to do so.

Again, to assume otherwise is to confuse whether some statement is true with the question of whether it can be justified by some ultimate context.

Cornelius' argument is parochial, in that it only takes into account a narrow scope of epistemology and science.

Specifically, he makes a number of assumptions about what knowledge is, how we acquire it, etc. He also makes a number of assumptions in regards to the philosophy of science. Finally, he projects those assumptions on to a group of people which he calls "evolutionists" as part of his argument, as if he somehow knows their positions matches his.

Furthermore, Cornelius does not explicitly disclose or argue for this form of epistemology and philosophy of science as he knows you, as his target audience, holds these same views as he does. In addition, he assumes you're not aware of the alternatives, so you won't notice that is argument is parochial.

In other words, he smuggles specific assumptions in to his arguments, without disclosing them or supporting them.

My questions are designed to illustrate this.

If my questions were irrelevant, then why doesn't Cornelius point out how they are irrelevant? Why doesn't Cornelius explicitly disclose and argue for his particular views on epistemology and science?

Because, in doing so, Cornelius would have to concede there are other serious positions on epistemology and science. This would be extremely problematic as he would then need to argue for his position, rather than presuppose it's the only game in town, etc.

I'm suggesting this is something Cornelius want's to avoid at all costs, which is why he hasn't answered the direct question I posed him.

As to my questions being unanswerable, this is yet another parochial assumption based on your belief that the Bible is authoritative and therefore cannot be criticized. You might think this is the case, but this doesn't "magically" mean that these questions cannot be answered by others who do not hold the same view on

Again, if we create knowledge via conjecture and refutation, this process includes criticizing explanations and discarding those with errors. Specifically, we assume that all knowledge is fallible and contains errors, which we systematically and incrementally seek to discard. As a result or explanations expand to include more phenomena and become more accurate.

But if you assume the Bible is infallible and without error, then there is nothing that can be added or discarded and the entire process grinds to screeching halt.

The result is, you think my questions are meaningless and unanswerable. But again, this is a parochial view.

I wrote: Because, in doing so, Cornelius would have to concede there are other serious positions on epistemology and science. This would be extremely problematic as he would then need to argue for his position, rather than presuppose it's the only game in town, etc.

I'm suggesting this is something Cornelius want's to avoid at all costs, which is why he hasn't answered the direct question I posed him.

To illustrate my point….

Cornelius, what is your position on the role of empirical observations in science? For example, if you're an empiricist, then which specific variation of empiricism?

There was early empiricism, which held that we discover knowledge when experience leaves marks on the blank stale of the mind. Then there was logical empiricism, in that statements that cannot be empirically verified are meaningless. And there is pragmatism, which was influential in laying the ground work for the role empirical observations play in today's scientific method, along with instrumentalism, which still lives on in aspects of the Copenhagen interoperation of quantum mechanics, which assumes that predictions of scientific theories do not actually represent reality, but are merely instruments that allow us to accurately predict what we will experience.

And then there is Critical Rationalism, which was also highly influential in the role empirical observations today's scientific method. However, Critical Rationalism flips empiricism on it's head, in that empirical observations still play a key role, but they are applied to objectively test the inner-subjectivity of scientific statements.

Of course, there are other options as well, but I've omitted them as it would make for a very long comment.

So, to repeat, what is your position on the role of empirical observations in science? Please be specific.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that nothing happens spontaneously? If so, are you also saying that God personally folds every protein and assembles every snowflake with His own fair hands?

[CH:]

No, my point was that in science we speak of spontaneous action *within a given context.* Evolutionists, OTH, can refer to a context, but even the context must have evolved. So any reference to context is merely intermediatary. Ultimately, there is no context.

Science doesn't know whether or not there is some ultimate context but it doesn't matter in this context. All that biology is concerned with is the immediate context of the apparently spontaneous events that can give rise to biological variation and diversity.

In any event, the question I was asking was simply whether you are a deist or a theist? Is God only the Creator or is He also an active participant in His creation on a day-to-day or even second-to-second basis?

Ian:

As you are well aware, the theory of evolution says nothing about origins.

[CH:]

No, that is false. That is the first place where evolutionists backpedal to when questioned. Not only does the theory of evolution have plenty to say about origins, but evolutionary thought knows no such bounds.

There is no backpedaling, only a refusal to be drawn in to defending a strawman version of evolution of your own creation.

While individual scientists have their own beliefs and speculations, the theory of evolution, from Darwin onwards, has had nothing to say about the origins of life and certainly nothing about the origins of the Universe as a whole.

It is, of course, quite true that, if we follow the course of evolution backwards in time, questions rise up before us about the origins of life, the Universe and everything. Science is well aware of them which is why abiogenesis and cosmogony are active fields of inquiry. But to criticize the theory of evolution for saying nothing about the origins of life - let alone the origins of the Universe - is like me criticizing your theology for having nothing useful to say about peanut butter.

Science doesn't know whether or not there is some ultimate context but it doesn't matter in this context. All that biology is concerned with is the immediate context of the apparently spontaneous events that can give rise to biological variation and diversity.

The OP is about evolution, not biology. The evolution literature (texts, popular volumes, etc) discusses the origin of life in addition to the evolution that occurs thereafter.

In any event, the question I was asking was simply whether you are a deist or a theist? Is God only the Creator or is He also an active participant in His creation on a day-to-day or even second-to-second basis?

Well first of all, a deist is a type of theist. Second, your question is not relevant to the OP. Third, this is a deeper issue than your question suggests. One could discuss it at length, but it is not an area of expertise or interest for me.

There is no backpedaling, only a refusal to be drawn in to defending a strawman version of evolution of your own creation.

I’m not the one creating strawmen. My criticism of evolution comes from the evolution literature.

While individual scientists have their own beliefs and speculations, the theory of evolution, from Darwin onwards, has had nothing to say about the origins of life …

No, that is false.

and certainly nothing about the origins of the Universe as a whole.

No, evolutionary thought pervades all the historical sciences today. Nor did it begin in 1859. That is an a-historical view of evolution. Darwin’s arguments come out of 17th and 18th century thought. Granted he applied the thinking in greater detail, and sometimes in new ways, but the underlying logic is no different.

But to criticize the theory of evolution for saying nothing about the origins of life - let alone the origins of the Universe …

CH: I’m not the one creating strawmen. My criticism of evolution comes from the evolution literature.

And you didn't create the term "evolution literature", just as you created your own definitions of "evolutionists" and "evolutionary thought", right?

CH: No, evolutionary thought pervades all the historical sciences today. Nor did it begin in 1859. That is an a-historical view of evolution. Darwin’s arguments come out of 17th and 18th century thought.

The issue Darwin addressed had been around since Socrates: the appearance of design was something that needed to be explained. However, Socrates never got around to defining what constitutes an appearance of design, and why.

It wasn't until William Paley make his argument for design that the issue was clarified. Specifically, he argued the sort of account that could explain a rock, or the raw materials a watch was assembled from, was not the same sort of account that could explain the watch itself. A watch couldn't have spontaneously appeared. Nor could it have been laying there forever or be a raw material itself.

Paley asked, "Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as the stone; why is it not admissible in the second case as in the first?" Paley knew why. The watch not only serves a purpose, but is adapted to that purpose. Specifically, the aspect that needs explaining is that if a watch (or eye) was slightly altered it would serve that purpose less well, or not even at all. That is, the design is hard to vary.

So, merely being useful for a purpose, without being hard to vary, is not a sign of adaptation or design.

For example, the sun can be used to tell time. However, it could be varied significantly without impacting how well it serves that purpose. The knowledge of how to use the sun to tell time is within us, and our sundials, rather than in the sun itself. But the knowledge of how to tell time is embodied in the watch, just as the knowledge of how to build an organism's features are embedded into an organism's genome.

So how did Paley "solve" this problem? He could think of only one explanation: the watch had to have a maker. There cannot be design without a designer; purpose without a purpose giver, etc. However, while Paley is to be credited with clarifying what needs to be explained, he failed to realize his solution didn't actually solve the problem. His ultimate designer would be, by Paley's own criteria, a purposeful entity - no less than a watch or living organism.

In other words, if we substitute Paley's 'ultimate designer' for the watch in Paley's own argument, we force him to "the [inevitable] inference… that the ultimate designer must have had a maker."

However, as I pointed out in my earlier comment, we have an explanation for these adaptations: evolutionary processes create the knowledge of how to build these adaptations using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refudiation, in the form of natural selection.

It appears *as if* it was designed because, as people, we use a form of conjecture and refutation to create the knowledge that is embedded in watches, computers, vehicle assembly robots, etc.

Excellent point Dr. Hunter. In the world as we know it, the world described by science with its laws and elements and equations, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing. Darwinism appears to be a religious faith that says life comes spontaneously from nothing. Poof! Magic. Miracle! Darwinism is not science; it is a religious faith.

The OP is about evolution, not biology. The evolution literature (texts, popular volumes, etc) discusses the origin of life in addition to the evolution that occurs thereafter.

The theory of evolution applies in the field of biology, which the OP refers to at length. The fact that the word 'evolution' is more loosely applied in other fields to mean something more general like change over time makes no difference.

Well first of all, a deist is a type of theist.

That is my understanding. It doesn't answer my question.

Second, your question is not relevant to the OP.

The OP referred to a Prime Mover. I was just curious about what sort of Prime Mover you have in mind.

Third, this is a deeper issue than your question suggests. One could discuss it at length, but it is not an area of expertise or interest for me.

So that's a "Don't know"?

No, evolutionary thought pervades all the historical sciences today.

Fruitfulness and the power to inspire new research are measures of a good scientific theory.

Nor did it begin in 1859. That is an a-historical view of evolution. Darwin’s arguments come out of 17th and 18th century thought. Granted he applied the thinking in greater detail, and sometimes in new ways, but the underlying logic is no different.

Of course Darwin's theory was informed by the thinking and research that went before. No one is suggesting otherwise. But it was also blended with his own original insights and research into a seminal theory which sought to explain the way life changed and diversified over time without invoking a Creator or some other intelligent agency.